Talmud....big fat "interpretation" crapJosephius...forgeryTacitus, Pliny the younger...stories of the cult of Christ...not primary.

Nope. Not good enough.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

"Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200"

This is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy and should be rejected immediately. "No serious scholar"? Oh I see, what you want to say is that any scholar who disagrees with your assumption is not a "serious" scholar. HA! FAIL. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

The arguments for a miracle worker named Jesus are weak at best. It's time to start honestly looking at both sides and not just the one favored to your assumption. Can you not think for yourself, or do you always need "scholars" to tell you how to think?

This is a very interesting post on your part. So you're willing to quote Bart Ehrman when he supports your presumption. Does this also mean that you are willing to be consistent and quote him when he DOES NOT support your assumption?

Refusing to take that "modern scholarship" argument to it's furthest is intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty - especially when it seems you don't really care about the arguments themselves but rather who agrees with your presumption.

Textual accounts of the miraculous (i.e. - ancient claims) are insufficient to establish that any miracle occurred. There's your state of modern scholarship!

People still take their own lives. Do you suggest they think they will avoid the consequences of their actions? They seem unable to resist the urge todo what is wrong, even to the point ofloosing their own lives in the effort.

Sorry but an appeal to authority who is making a statement that is essentially a no true scotsman doesn't quite make the argument for me.

I realize that this isn't a textbook example of the fallacy, as Bart Ehrman is an expert in the feild. And guess what, I'm inclined to think that there was not one but several historical figures that the legendary mythical Christ is based on.

However, THAT DOES NOT CHANGE that Mr. Ehrman's "certainly" has NO primary evidence. None. A pronouncement isn't evidence.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

There were several Sherlock Holmes-like people, police detectives, doctors and so forth in Victorian days who were the basis for the Conan Doyle character. They were actual people and we have records of them and what they did. None of that means that there was a real guy named Sherlock Holmes running around London solving mysteries. There would be newspaper articles, family information and so forth about him. And there is not, because he was fictional, not real.

That is what it sounds like with the "Jesus really existed" stuff. He sounds fictional, not real, even before you add in the magical stuff. There certainly could have been several itinerant Jewish preachers roaming around the Middle East during the Roman Empire. Some of them probably gathered groups of followers and made public speeches--why not? Someone might even have said the "love one another" stuff and annoying parables that are attributed to "Jesus". One of them might even have pissed off the authorities enough to get himself executed. I don't think anyone would dispute that this could be factual.

But there is no evidence from the time period that there was this one guy who did all of these things-- plus did miracles in front of hundreds of people and came back from the dead. Those are things that would get noticed by lots of writers and observers in any time period. You would think that someone would have passed on the info about Jesus along with the shipment of spices and silk. However, he is not recorded in the Jewish records of the time. Nobody in India or China or Egypt or Ethiopia or Rome heard anything about him, although these people had been traveling and trading goods back and forth for centuries.

And although people wrote about all kinds of things that we still have records of, including everyday gossip, news from home, tax bills and shopping lists, nobody anywhere appeared to notice the one and only son of god, the true Messiah, showing up, healing the sick, raising the dead, getting killed and coming back again.

There were several Sherlock Holmes-like people, police detectives, doctors and so forth in Victorian days who were the basis for the Conan Doyle character. They were actual people and we have records of them and what they did. None of that means that there was a real guy named Sherlock Holmes running around London solving mysteries. There would be newspaper articles, family information and so forth about him. And there is not, because he was fictional, not real.

That is what it sounds like with the "Jesus really existed" stuff. He sounds fictional, not real, even before you add in the magical stuff. There certainly could have been several itinerant Jewish preachers roaming around the Middle East during the Roman Empire. Some of them probably gathered groups of followers and made public speeches--why not? Someone might even have said the "love one another" stuff and annoying parables that are attributed to "Jesus". One of them might even have pissed off the authorities enough to get himself executed. I don't think anyone would dispute that this could be factual.

But there is no evidence from the time period that there was this one guy who did all of these things-- plus did miracles in front of hundreds of people and came back from the dead. Those are things that would get noticed by lots of writers and observers in any time period. You would think that someone would have passed on the info about Jesus along with the shipment of spices and silk. However, he is not recorded in the Jewish records of the time. Nobody in India or China or Egypt or Ethiopia or Rome heard anything about him, although these people had been traveling and trading goods back and forth for centuries.

And although people wrote about all kinds of things that we still have records of, including everyday gossip, news from home, tax bills and shopping lists, nobody anywhere appeared to notice the one and only son of god, the true Messiah, showing up, healing the sick, raising the dead, getting killed and coming back again.

Wonder why that is.

Perhaps he belonged to an Essene Community and held the post of Righteous Teacher. Because they practised the austere "nazarite" ways no one outside the Jewish traditions knew or cared about them. He dies and the Pharisees dress Saulus up as an Essene to go about drawing those lost to the Jesus interpretation back to Pharisaic Judaism. Miracles they like, but at this stage nothing as elaborate as you see in the Biblical record. So far he's just another Jewish sect leader with an attractive philosophy that is more appealing the overly ritualistic Pharisee tradition.

Emperor Nerva at Nero's bequest uncovers Saulus activity. This upsets Nero. They also allegedly called him the Beast or AntiChrist. Nero wipes out all the Jesus sect Bishops and then starts out to smash all things Jewish.

When Vespasian comes to power, he decides that he needs a better spin on the Jewish Massacre. He tasks Nerva (a skilled literary apparently) with re-writing the Jewish history and giving it a more favourable image for Rome's part. The works of the incredibly talented Flavius Josephus are born. Then one of the Flavians assigns Nerva the task of writing the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts, thus romanizing the Jewish Sect and creating Roman Christianity. It's Nerva that fabricates the Miracles thus outplaying the Pharisees at their own game.

Mark was written to counter the work of Mark the Pharisee evangelist and most likely was targeted towards the AlexandriansLuke was for the folks in JudeaMatthew was for the broader community not the least being the kings (or Magi) from the east.John well he was his own man and had some good stuff philosophically speaking. They used him for credibility and pinned the Fiction of Revelations on him.

The Book of Acts exists to romanize the efforts of Paul the Pharisee.

Nerva is handsomely rewarded by both Nero and the Flavians and later rises to the post of Roman Emperor. Not a bad effort.

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.

Not lazy, and I did ask. However I will ask again "What historical records!". The onus is yours, please supply said records. Not just your opinion! Any historical records would be out there for all to see. So cite your sources. [1]

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.

Not lazy, and I did ask. However I will ask again "What historical records!". The onus is yours, please supply said records. Not just your opinion! Any historical records would be out there for all to see. So cite your sources. [1]

No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 05:10:16 AM by bertatberts »

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.

Did you go to the web link and if so are you saying that I haven't provided a reference to a specific point you wish to challenge. If so, my bad, the summary doesn't have the links that the main book has. Let me know what your challenge is and I'll get the reference. might I suggest to make this quick a possible for you., you start with my claims that Judaism was corrupted by Cyrus the Great and that proof exists to support a further claim that the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah were made up.

If you haven't visited the link, what can I say. Don't worry be happy :-)